Sociopaths are fine.

There is no inherent issue with sociopathy. Sociopaths simply embrace that they lack empathy, require more stimulation to make up for creeping anhedonia, and therefore, tend to take advantage of those around them. So what? People deserve to be manipulated.

This topic mainly goes out to those of you who dislike sociopaths. What's so bad about them?

Sociopathy is defective. Even though sociopaths are often 'successful' (until they slip up), they are just as frequently destructive to the world around them.

On a more 'personal' level, sociopathy is contemptible to me because I like beauty, wisdom and grace. These values are poorly served by the myopic, hedonistic selfishness and lack of reflection one associates with sociopathy.

What's so bad about homosexuals? Or pedophiles? Or thieves? This is the wrong question. The better question is to ask, what's good about them? What do they bring to the table that benefits society? Do they have anything that makes them worth keeping them around? The difference is in between excusing the negative vs. reinforcing the positive.

You can't build a healthy society out of sociopaths. That's what's so bad about them; they cannot be relied on to serve any sort of common interest. One can find or make convincing arguments for showing how the sociopath, as an individual person, is not so bad. The problem is that no man is an island; all the actions of all men affect the rest. A cog with some of its teeth missing and some rust spots is not any worse than a pristine cog, when they're both taken out of their machine and considered as individual cogs. They're both just shaped lumps of metal. Who's to say one is better than the other? We should let go of our assumptions of what a cog is supposed to be, and just let it be what it is. The very term "cog" is functionalist! But of course, a cog was designed for a specific function in a specific machine, and that machine was designed to use those specific cogs. They aren't much use once they're taken out of the machine in which they operate. And likewise, the machine isn't much use without the good one.

What's so bad about homosexuals? Or pedophiles? Or thieves? This is the wrong question. The better question is to ask, what's good about them? What do they bring to the table that benefits society? Do they have anything that makes them worth keeping them around? The difference is in between excusing the negative vs. reinforcing the positive.

What can you, or anyone else, do about them? A smart sociopath either channels his inclinations into non-offensive, thrill-seeking behavior (sky diving, for instance), or doesn't get caught setting fire to things for fun. In other words, how can you catch them?

It seems to me that pragmatically, they aren't an issue until they cause too many problems. In which case, you deal with them like any other trouble-maker.

You can't really sort them out to catch them, yet sometimes you get them anyway; what do you then do with them? The only practical consideration.

Exactly. Yet, several people on this forum seem to dislike them. I don't see the problem. They can be functional. It's only when they do something horrid that you must deal with them, but then they are just another criminal. Heads will roll--no hard feelings.

Sociopaths are pirates. Are pirates 'fine'? There have always been pirates, sociopaths, psychopaths, rapists, etc. This is normal. But to endorse such behaviour? When society reaches the point of doing that, it is a short step from extinction.

It's not the role of sociopaths to be accepted by society. On the contrary. It's a lonely path, a sort of left hand path. They are the dragons who kidnap the princess. The beast, the lurking fear.Than again, I don't think there's a lot of them whom know that implication. They just follow their inner beast by instinct, or basic interest. Than again, the majority of people does it all the time, not really knowing what they do.

To be bref, they are a reminder that life in this universe is bref and impermanent, and that we all gonna die in a way or another, and that life is based on taking something from another to be able to continue to strive. In an ideal society, we wouldn't need them to remind us of that, but in a insane and myopic world, maybe we don't have the choice to have them to shake the things up a bit.

Sociopaths are pirates. Are pirates 'fine'? There have always been pirates, sociopaths, psychopaths, rapists, etc. This is normal. But to endorse such behaviour? When society reaches the point of doing that, it is a short step from extinction.

If you're referring to the OP, I don't think he was endorsing the behavior, he was just pointing out that there is nothing inherently bad about it existing. (Which I'm unsure that I agree with)

Sociopaths are pirates. Are pirates 'fine'? There have always been pirates, sociopaths, psychopaths, rapists, etc. This is normal. But to endorse such behaviour? When society reaches the point of doing that, it is a short step from extinction.

If you're referring to the OP, I don't think he was endorsing the behavior, he was just pointing out that there is nothing inherently bad about it existing. (Which I'm unsure that I agree with)

So the arguement is that 'dysfunction' within a system or part of its development is naturally occuring, all the more so in a failing society. It's also natural for a healthy society to try and minimize dysfunction. So what's the point of sympathizing with the problem (unless you feel a part of it) ?